ANALYSIS OF STARCH ACCUMULATION,CORRESPONDING ENZYME ACTIVITY AND GENE EXPRESSION AMONG DIFFERENT TYPES OF CORNS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The starch accumulation,the starch biosynthetic enzymes activity and gene expression of different types of maize were measured,and the differences and relations between them were analyzed in order to further understand the starch synthesis in different maize types and improve the quality of maize starch.The results showed that the percentage composition of total starch and amylose were in the order of normal cornwaxy corn sweet corn,and the amylopectin was waxy corn normal cornsweet corn.Total starch and amylose were significantly(P0.01 and P0.05,respectively) different among different types of corns.During the filling period,the enzymes involved in starch synthesis were highest in normal corn,lowest in sweet corn.Compared to the waxy corn,though the GBSS activities in waxy corn was significantly low during the grain filling period.The starch synthesis enzymes except the GBSS were significantly different among the three types of corn.The expression levels of starch genes in normal corn were higher than those in other two kinds of corn.However there are still transcriptions in the mutants sh2 and wax with other two kinds of corn,indicating that there are differences in starch synthesis among different mutants.The synthesis of normal starch is orchestrated by the enzymes involved in starch synthesis and the deficiency of any one enzyme in starch synthesis will change the starch constitution.In addition,the gene expression levels were found to be different among normal corn,sweet corn and waxy corn,and the mutant gene has the transcriptional activity.The correlation analysis of normal corn among starch accumulations,enzymes activities and the gene expressions showed that both transcription and posttranscription regulate the starch metabolism.Therefore the starch synthesis is the result of the synergistic effect of each starch synthesis enzyme.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".